Discussion:Trikes
Copied from old Pedalwiki. Discussion archive for this page until today. --Theosch 3 juin 2009 à 21:39 (CEST)
I think that trike development has been hampered by the use of bicycle parts. Trikes have side loads on the wheels that bike wheels are not designed to take, and even without disk brakes they intrude into the space that would be used for the kingpins in a more balanced design. I'd like to see a set of parts from the ball joints to the rim that have been designed exclusively for trikes put on the market. I think we could save up to five pounds per trike that way, and improve handling too.
Bob Stuart
That is audacious Bob. 5lb is a lot. The Greenspeed hubs and rims are the first mass produced design that I know of designed with trikes in mind. They have some good features. Rims: No brake track, deep enough that tries can be removed without irons. Box section for strength (if memory serves). Anodized for easy care. Because they are 20" dia they are already lots stronger than upright bike parts. Supports tubeless use (maybe not by design). Hubs: Designed for the 1/2 axle, sealed off the shelf roller bearings. Disc brake disc mount bolt circle. Reduced width and increased strength by eliminating the outer flange and pulling the spoke head through radially. I think I laced mine with a cross 1 pattern. No signs of deterioration, the spokes don't seem to loosen.
Without looking inward more towards the steering gear, what would you change about those wheels? Narrower? There has to be a limit.
We have trike specific tires now with the Scorchers. By all accounts they are good rolling tires made similarly to the efficient Tioga Comp Pools. No wasted rubber on the sides makes the carcass more flexible and less lossy. The Tioga compounds are a bit on the soft side perhaps.
Are you proposing a sub heading in the WIKI to discuss the differences of trike wheels, etc. in detail?
Mike Ross
I didn't want to get into a discussion, but in general, as you may suspect, I would change less the closer you get to the road. Bob Stuart.
I think trike development has been hampered by a number of things that have far more of an effect on them than the part origins or weight. Cost is the biggest thing, in my opinion. Cost of the trikes to the public, cost of what a manufacturer thinks the public wants, should want or need, and the cost of custom and high end parts that the manufacturers use.
There will always be more people that can afford an inexpensive bike than ones that can afford a multi-thousand dollar one. There will always be more people that are satisfied with an inexpensive bike and not need or want a multi-thousand dollar one. If people can go into bulk stores and buy inexpensive bikes, they should be able to go to the same place for inexpensive bents and trikes. "Inexpensive part" does not equal "low quality part", "unreliable part", "poor functioning part" or "low durability part". In some instances it does, but part failure and operation is more often than not due to poor/low maintenance, abuse, improper installation and/or improper operation. I have bulk store bike parts that were pulled out of the dumpster and still operating on bents with thousands of kilometers on them and they are still working properly. I have seen high end bikes get trashed through lack of respect just as fast as a bulk store steel bike.
Making an inexpensive, steel trike, with economy parts is not a sign of poor quality, shoddy workmanship or a cut rate manufacturer. In my opinion, it's the sign of a manufacturer who knows that more low priced trikes will sell than high priced ones. While the profit margin won't be anywhere near as high, volume works just as well at making money, but the source of the trike needs to take the chance, and take the plunge. Even taking a chance on 10 or 20 units should be within the budget of most manufacturers. Inexpensive trikes are the seed to both sell more inexpensive trikes, and to fuel the desire to upgrade to a higher end trike that might be ligher, faster, suspended, better grouppo, whatever. As it is now, the enthusiasm of an interested person is quickly cooled when they find out the cost of even a current "entry level" trike is at least 5 times more expensive than a bike they could buy at a bulk store. The bent community has either forgotten, or they're completely ignoring the fact that the "average Joe", the kind of person that most of the planet is made up of (or even less financed than average), is the kind of person that they will sell the most recumbents to.
With high trike costs, and expensive parts, trike and bent sales are lower than they could be. With fewer units be sold, there is less money for experimenting and development. With costs for custom fabrication of parts, there are less funds for development. From an owner standpoint, what kind of experimenting or development is the average bent owner going to be doing to a titanium high racer's frame? Or to a $400 carbon fibre seat? Or a $3000 aluminum trike? Anyone going to take the chance and half spoke, or radial lace a set of Thracians when it took them 3 months of saving and some of a line of credit to get them? I run into a fair number of people who comment on a positive feature that they see on a homebuilt trike, express their wish that it was on their expensive trike, but are understandably unwilling or unable to drill a hole where there wasn't one originally, or weld a tab on for a rack or holder, or put a clamp on where it would damage the paint job. Warranty issues aside, I don't really blame them and at the same time it's nice to see that kind of respect for equipment in this push-button, instant-on, I-want-it-right-now era we're living in.
There's no reason to custom lace high price wheels for the average consumer when there are inexpensive BMX wheels that are more than strong enough. If 48 spokes are too heavy for you, use a 32 or 36 spoke wheel, or take half the spokes out of the 48 hole wheel. Again, for the AVERAGE consumer, 24 will still likely be more than strong enough. A more spirited rider is going to be looking for something else and willing to pay more for it, and all those options already exist for that type of rider. Unfortunately, those options are also pretty much the only ones that exist for those that don't want or need them either. Experimenting with low cost parts at the extreme edges of trike design or functionality are far less of an economic hit than trashing a set of high priced ones. For the average consumer, simple rim brakes with some half decent pads are more than enough to negate the need for much more expensive disc brakes and hubs. The average consumer doesn't care whether a trike has SRAM 9, or XTR or Dura Ace, or Tourney on it. Can they ride it? Does it stop? Can they change gears when it gets hard to pedal? Is it comfortable? And MOST importantly, can they afford it?
Who knows what the right person could do if they owned a trike? Who knows what flash of insight might take trike development to a completely new level if that one person only had a trike to ride and to get their creative juices flowing? Look at the first people who started trying to push short cranks. Even now, after all kinds of test and trials with short cranks that prove short cranks are not something to be dismissed off-hand, most still argue in favor of long cranks, because that's what worked in the past. Oval or eccentric chainrings? Another idea that is voodoo because of an initial mis-understanding of their purpose and use, but yet another development that could send any HPV nto a new realm of usability.
I think that too many people, deep down inside themselves somewhere, are secretly bothered by the money they have spent on a bent or trike. In order to cope with it, they often try to shoot down any design, product, or individual that isn't as expensive, isn't as "exclusive" or isn't willing/able to spend as much. I think most of the innovation of trikes and bents has been at the hands of small tinkerers (at least initially) and by people that were trying to get the most bang for their buck on a shoestring budget. As those innovations were turned into titanium and carbon fibre and other exotic fabrications, I think too many people now think that expensive technological solutions are the starting point now, and not the evolution of something much less complicated, which it should be. When manufacturers decide to try some truly low cost trikes, I think the development will increase as the trike population does.
25hz (25Hz, I added some carriage returns to your note - it is displaying really weird in the WIKI talk page. It didn't work though. It isn't word wrapping in my browser. But Bob's and mine messages do. Very odd. MER)
Bob, It sounds like you are not interested in covering that topic in the WIKI.
Do you have any thoughts on the purpose and structure of a WIKI for trikes?
What is the earliest recumbent trike that you know about? MER.
25Hz, I just figured out that you are trike populist. Bully for you. I am with you, the simple designs appeal to me a lot. And I love making old parts find a new life. But I still like my finely crafted trike. I went to school so I could afford something like that every now and then. I don't go for luxury in much, but I saved for 3 years to get my trike. MER
Yes, I figured out what the problem was. The spaces at the beginning of the paragraphs for artificial "indents". I don't think I am a "populist", at least by the definition of it, but rather I am a big fan of trikes, would like to see everyone with at least the chance to try one, but I am a big fan of low cost and high volume, rather than high cost and low volume. I also enjoy finely crafted trikes, but enjoy making less expensive trikes that can perform with the best of them even more :)
25hz
Hi MER, The only way to really "cover" that topic is to build one and report on it for the opening page.
I think we should try to flesh out the articles- I'd forgotten what I knew about editing wikis, but thought it might be good to try for consensus here, but it is as elusive as on our regular list. This would definitely be the place for Trike Travelogues and such, but somehow I'm hesitant to even repeat my usual rants about the dangers of deltas.
The first recumbent trike I saw was the Fat Burner, by James Washington and the People's Institute of Aviation, presented at the Aberfoyle Fair, Ontario, Canada, in 1975, but I could probably search my books for earlier examples.
Robert Stein reports that he went into business to make inexpensive trikes, and has held the line on frame prices, but has not been able to sell trikes with inexpensive, functional components. Everybody wants an upgrade.
Bob Stuart
Bob,
I especially would like to see you write on the disadvantages of the delta configuration. I think it would be good to include any first hand experience though.. I don't think I have heard you cover that; you more or less just threw out your understanding of the physics and left it at that.
If you really think you are right about it, do you not have an ethical responsibility to of some sort to spell it out? I would defend you on that basis even if I thought you were full of beans - not that you can't stand up for yourself mind you.
Mike (MER) Ross
